Re: source-based package management

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Source based packages implemented in a way similar to Gentoo
   GNU/Linux benefit from the fact that features are easily
   customizable. Rather than having a set of precompiled binary
   packages with common features, a user can select optional package
   features and not only have he package customized to their choices,
   but have the tree of dependencies respond to their choice.

This requires us to map the switches each ./configure script
implements with whatever permutations might work and not, testing that
it works, etc.  It is not worth our time and energy.  It is much
simpler, efficnet, and infact better, to use configure directly.  The
user will also be very dissapointed when we are late with a version
(ideally, we should only bother updating the GSC when we produce a new
release), or if some switch is not supported or doesn't work with
another switch.  Users will also report bugs to _us_, and not to the
upstream maintainers, which is where they should report any bugs they
get when compiling.  If there is something a configure script is weak
at doing, then one should add such functionality to autoconf.

   Once such a source based packae manager is designed, it could also
   be used for generating our binary packages.

We have a system to generate our `binary packages', GSC.  But it isn't
meant to be used in the way you describe, it is meant to build the GNU
system much like /usr/src in OpenBSD.  You can tweak the Makefile to
change a variable or similar if you really want to.

Cheers.